Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

LANE: Jeffrey MacDonald brutally murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters. MacDonald's minor injuries were not the result of a brutal assault. They were the result of his pregnant wife defending herself. The pathologist's report concluded that prior to the stab wounds to her chest and neck, Colette would have survived her severe blunt trauma injuries, but conceded that she would have been "cosmetically disfigured."

Her husband's vital signs were normal, he didn't require a single suture to close his wounds, and his lone severe stab wound was self-inflicted. To compare Jeffrey MacDonald's physical condition to Dr. Petit's condition is absurd. MacDonald is a coward, a serial liar, and a mass murderer.

JTF is fixated on Dr. MacDonald as the murderer of his wife and daughters and nothing will probably ever make JTF change his mind about that.

The thing is there have been other murder cases in the UK, and probably in America as well, where parents have had their child murdered. In this quite recent Madeleine McCann case there are still people and even journalists who blame the parents for that when to my mind it's quite obviously done by an intruder or intruders. I find that quite outrageous. There must be supporting evidence and not just emotion.

The Portuguese police investigation into that case has been declared "rubbishy" in the UK which reminds me of the MacDonald case and the Ramsey case and even the Darlie Routier case.

I agree these murders are horrible murders, but an average juror must decide on the evidence, and not on emotion, as many of the posters on this forum seem to approach the problem. Jurors seem to become completely uinrelaible at the first mention of blood, or unconsciousness.

There is a sensible opinion about all this on the internet from 1999:

"Mildred Kassab when she still liked Jeffrey testified there was no
icepick she had ever seen in the house. When she discovered years later
that she had hated him all along, especially since he had not remained
attendant on her and her cancer but had actually abandoned her for a
job elsewhere, her repressed memory of the icepick recovered. The
babysitter had a similar memory recovery after a lengthy discussion with
Brian Murtagh.

BTW the ugly ass scissors must have gone down the crapper with the
scalpel, gloves, packaging, candles or whatever is needed to fit your
scenario."

HENRI: Stating that I will never change my mind about inmate's guilt is probably the only factual representation you've made about this case in over a decade of posting. Ironically, none of the jurors who decided inmate's fate have had 2nd thoughts about their decision to convict his sorry ass. Earlier this year, juror Fred Thornhill told Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten that the main reason for making a quick decision on inmate's guilt was due to the mass of physical evidence presented by the prosecution.

This is an interesting opinion about the MacDonald case trial jury and Fred Thornhill from a 1999 opinion on the internet:

>Who has said anything about a "reluctant jury"?
The jurors.

"During a 1988 interview, Fred Thornhill confided that if the holdouts
had continued to resist, he, not totally convinced himself, might have
swung the other way..." He blamed his vote on a "lack of defense."

"Arnold Clary, another of the jurors interviewed in 1988, said that
throughout the trial he wanted to acquit MacDonald."

Neither of these two were the final holdouts. The last of two holdouts
was Eddie Parker who recalled, "A few us didn't believe he was
guilty." Later Parker said, "I still don't think Doctor MacDonald's
guilty. I try to put it out of my mind. I don't feel like he's
guilty, and I'll tell anybody I don't feel like he's guilty."

All the quotes above are taken from "Fatal Justice," pp. 246-247.

>I have a friend who personally
>knows one of the jurors, and this woman on the jury said the jury found it
>obvious he was guilty and they found his whole demeanor to be one of a guilty
>man.
Think it might have had anything whatever to do with the prosecution
hammering MacDonald with the lack of blood where Dr. MacDonald said he
was stabbed and bludgeoned into unconsciousness? The prosecution knew
that blood had been found there. The jurors agreed that was a key
point.

If you were ever put on trial as an innocent person don't you think you would want an extremely competent judge, and an impartial jury which is honest, fair-minded, able to concentrate sufficiently to listen to the evidence, and capable of making up its mind at the finish?

I don't like all this media frenzy in some of these high profile cases, with biased journalists trying to make money from the cases. It can affect a fair trial. In the UK there have been one or two jurors in the past who have been jailed for researching the character and previous convictions of the prisoner on trial in question, on the internet, which I have always considered a bit harsh but there must be a good reason in law in order to avoid bias.

All serious criminal charges are tried with a jury, with the result that innocent men are sometimes convicted. How often this occurs no one can say, for Judges, knowing what juries are, usually strain every possible point against the prosecution, and thus many guilty men are acquitted. The position would be farcical were it not for the tragedy often involved.

HENRI: Fatal Justice is not a credible source for accurate information on this case. As you well know, I communicated with co-author Fred Bost, and fact checked the entire book back in 2006. On average, the book contains a distortion, assumption, half-truth, or flat-out falsehood every 3rd page. The book is 429 pages long, so do the math.

...The last of two holdouts was Eddie Parker who...said..."I still don't think Doctor MacDonald's guilty...I don't feel like he's guilty, and I'll tell anybody I don't feel like he's guilty."

All the quotes above are taken from "Fatal Justice," pp. 246-247...

Does the book provide any explanation for why he voted guilty if -even at the time of the vote, rather than this being an opinion he came to later- he believed Dr. MacDonald was not responsible for the murders?.
.

__________________Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.

LANE: The first vote by the 1979 jury was 10-2 in favor of MacDonald's guilt. Bost and Potter claim that the two jurors were intimated by the remaining jurors, especially the jury foreman. This is typical MacDonald camp nonsense. Classic hyperbole, sour grapes, and a refusal to address the mass of physical evidence which led to the jury convicting MacDonald in less than 7 hours.

Does the book provide any explanation for why he voted guilty if -even at the time of the vote, rather than this being an opinion he came to later- he believed Dr. MacDonald was not responsible for the murders?.
.

What goes on in a jury room tends to be secret in the UK, but I have noticed that jurors in other cases in America are sometimes interviewed on TV by TV reporters about why they came to a verdict.

There are stories in the MacDonald case about how a black lady juror burst into tears at the verdict in 1979. There used to a quote on the internet by a female juror after the trial that the jury were not fully informed about "that woman" by which she meant Helena Stoeckley.

I don't think there is much doubt that the foreman of the MacDonald case jury was biased before the trial, and also during the trial. Dr. MacDonald never had an impartial jury or an impartial judge. That was an irregularity that should have been put right by the Fourth Circuit, and by the Supreme Court.

There is some background information to all this in the Affidavits section of Christina's MacDonald case website, I think in 1988 with declarations by Klein and Bowden.

Henri studiously ignores the FACT that neither Bernie Segal nor Wade Smith argued that their client did not receive a fair trial. The appellate courts concurred, so the issues put forth by MacDonald's rotating band of lawyers have revolved around unsourced household debris and confessions from unreliable witnesses.

I don't think that's quite right in JTF saying that Segal and Wade Smith ever conceded the lack of a fair trial theory. Segal was quoted in the past as saying that the prosecution case was an extraordinary series of inventions. Wade Smith has always seemed to adopt the attitude that the MacDonald case was just another case and some you win and some you lose because it's a lottery.

I think there was too much of a 'will to win' by the prosecution and they were willing to use cunning and trickery and dishonesty to achieve that.

Dr. MacDonald was convicted because according to the FBI lab there were supposed to be two pajama-like fibers on the wooden club, or they may be two black wool fibers from an unknown source never tested or seen by the defense. It's ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.

This is what I have previously written about the matter:

Stombaugh did not impress me. I question his integrity and his credentials and it's probably a good thing from my point of view that he is now deceased.

Stombaugh's theory in the MacDonald case that bodies were supposed to be carried in a bedsheet were largely disproven by the Macdonald defense, apart from possible cuff impressions which could have been caused by anything. Stombaugh's wild and wonderful pajama folding theory was contrived and impossible by a little hair and fiber man whose hair and fiber evidence in the MacDonald case is open to question, and reasonable doubt, as well.

Stombaugh was a con artist who was basically an insurance salesman. Then he became a jumped up so-called forensic scientist with no scientific qualifications. Would that be allowed at NASA, or at your local hospital?

This is part of what Noguchi thought about the MacDonald case, and it's reasonable doubt:

This is part of that report about multiple intruders in the MacDonald murders case:

"Thomas Noguchi, MD was the pathologist hired to do an Independent Review of the reports of the victims, he writes the following report.

"Based on my review of the autopsy reports, photographs, and investigative reports and at scene and the reviews of others, the following is my opinions and medicolegal interpretation of the wounds and injury patterns.

Colette MacDonald:

(1) Three types of weapons were involved in the attack on Colette

(A) A blunt object with a square contact area
(B) A knife
(C) An ice pick

(2) The wounds were inflicted while she was alive.

(3) The three types of wounds were inflicted within a short interval of time.

(4) The blunt force injuries are on the right side of the face indicating that the assailant
was left handed.

(Regarding the above, it is interesting that Jeffrey was right handed. However, Greg Mitchell was left handed.)

Kimberley MacDonald:

(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kimberley:

(A) A blunt object with flat surfaces.
(B) A knife

(2) The wounds were inflicted while she was still alive.

(3) Most of the injuries are found on the right side of the body.

(4) The blunt injury to the right side of the face was inflicted first.

(5) The blunt force injury was delivered by a left handed person.

(6) The wounds were inflicted within a short interval of time.

Kristen MacDonald:

(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kristen:

(A) A knife
(B) An ice pick like piercing object.

(2) The injuries were sustained with she was still alive.

(3) The ice pick type wounds were inflicted first followed by the stab wounds on the chest.

(4) The stab wounds in the back were inflicted after the injuries to the front of the body.

Additional ice pick type wounds were inflicted on the chest as she was dying.

(5) There are linear wounds on the neck which appear to have been caused by a constrictive force delivered by a ligature, such as a thin rope or a heavy string.

Based on the sequence of injuries and the types of injuries on the three deceased, my opinion is that there were multiple assailants, at least one of them whom are left handed, and carrying a blunt object, a knife and an ice pick type object are involved. The activities appeared to be well coordinated."

This was signed by Thomas Noguchi, MD

University of Virginia law Professor Brandon L. Garrett has written in his recent book, Convicting the Innocent, the one claim no convict can easily bring is a claim that he is innocent and should be freed for that reason alone.
At the 1985 MacDonald appeal it was suggested by the defense lawyers that Judge Dupree should have recused himself because his former son-in-law lawyer Proctor, who joined the CIA, was instrumental in getting Dr. MacDonald prosecuted in the first place.

The jury was biased, rather like Christina's MacDonald case forum, where Mike in Japan has just been banned for questioning the MacMurderer line. The MacDonald case needs some professional criminal investigators.

Is this the same Thomas Noguchi who just looked at some crime scene photos and declared that no human could ever use more than one weapon? That it was not possible for a person to put down a club and pick up an ice pick?

MacDonald had been in the joint for 4 years (e.g., 1982-1986) when his advocates attempted to have Noguchi be another in a long line of hired guns for the Defense. Noguchi didn't do much in the way of forensic analysis and simply piggy-backed prior Defense claims that were debunked at the 1984 evidentiary hearings.

Despite Henriboy's assertions to the contrary, Noguchi admitted that Paul Stombaugh's forensic analysis was impressive and that his 1979 trial testimony helped to convict MacDonald on three counts of murder.

I agree with JTF that Stombaugh's "only said it could be" forensic analysis he dreamed up helped to sway the biased jury.

Noguchi came in for unfair criticism for his outspoken views in the controversial high profile death of Natalie Wood in California. I notice that particular case was re-opened in 2012, but it seems to have come to nothing.

The 1984 MacDonald case evidentiary hearing was when Judge Dupree made the stupid remark that Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere on the night of the MacDonald murders! The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers have never been properly explained or Frier's discovery of black non-pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon.

According to FBI statistics most domestic murders only use one murder weapon, not a collection of knives and scissors as in the MacDonald case. It was perfectly logical for Noguchi to say there were multiple assailants.

Noguchi came in for unfair criticism for his outspoken views in the controversial high profile death of Natalie Wood in California. I notice that particular case was re-opened in 2012, but it seems to have come to nothing.

Hmmm,

Quote:

Following his investigation, Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi ruled her death an accident by drowning and hypothermia.[47] According to the coroner, Natalie Wood had been drinking and may have slipped while trying to re-board the dinghy.[45]

The case was reopened in November 2011 after the captain of the boat, Dennis Davern, told NBC News that he lied to police during the initial investigation and that a fight between Wood and Wagner had led to her death.[45] After nine months of further investigation, Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran amended Wood's death certificate and changed the cause of her death from accidental drowning to "drowning and other undetermined factors".[48]

Seems like he had damn little to do with the reopening.

Quote:

The 1984 MacDonald case evidentiary hearing was when Judge Dupree made the stupid remark that Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere on the night of the MacDonald murders! The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers have never been properly explained or Frier's discovery of black non-pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon.

Even if they aren't I'd still be laughing at the idea that a group of hippies managed to perform such brutal murders without leaving any evidence, incapacitate a Green Beret with minimal effort, and leave a relatively tidy crime scene.

Quote:

According to FBI statistics most domestic murders only use one murder weapon, not a collection of knives and scissors as in the MacDonald case. It was perfectly logical for Noguchi to say there were multiple assailants

If the domestic murderer wasn't trying to stage a fake crime scene I'd say this is relevant. As it stands it isn't.

Gotta luv how Henri can fit several falsehoods in a short post. The Government has put forth salient explanations for the unsourced household debris found at the crime scene. The source of the saran fibers was most likely dolls owned by the MacDonald children. The source of the dark woolen fibers was most likely dark sweaters and caps owned by the MacDonald family.

The problem with producing a concrete source for these fibers is that MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items and the children's doll collections shortly after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearings. Fortunately, there was a definitive source (e.g., Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top) for the over 100 fibers found under bodies, bedcovers, Kristen's fingernail, and adhering to the club in Colette's blood.

All of the sourced evidence in this case point to a lone perp. That includes DNA, hairs, fibers, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, bloody footprints, and fabric damage evidence. The name of the perp is Jeffrey MacDonald.

...Fortunately, there was a definitive source (e.g., Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top) for the over 100 fibers found under bodies, bedcovers, Kristen's fingernail, and adhering to the club in Colette's blood.

...

What kind of pajamas leave fibers all over the place? Were the pajamas flannel? And is the idea that MacDonald dragged his pajamas across places where the fibers were found? If MacDonald's pajamas were so prone to dropping fibers behind how is it possible to rule out the possibility that a lot of these fibers weren't there before the murders began?

As an aside, I wasn't enthused about the personal sniping in this thread when the thread started. Now I just wish it would stop. I come here hoping to see a discussion of evidence in this case and I'm annoyed when I am notified that there has been new thread activity only to find that a lot of that activity is sniping. Please strive for awhile, at least, to address the argument and not the arguer.

__________________The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

DAVE: MacDonald claims that he was attacked in the living room by three armed hippie home invaders and that during the struggle, his pajama top was torn. The top was torn down the left front seam and left sleeve down to the cuff. The two tears combined to measure 72 inches in length.

MacDonald claims he awoke on the hallway floor and that his pajama top was wrapped around his wrists. There were no pajama fibers from that torn garment found in the living room and only two fibers were found where he claims he regained consciousness.

He then claims he walked down the hallway and "found" his wife dead on the master bedroom carpet. He then claims he removed the torn pajama top from his wrists and dropped it on the carpet. Later in his story, he claims he picked up the pajama top off the carpet and placed it over his wife's chest to treat her for shock.

As soon as MacDonald told CID investigators that he took off his pajama top after "finding" Colette on the master bedroom carpet, the ballgame was over. Why? Let me count the ways.

1) Twenty Four pajama fibers were found under Colette's body.

2) One of those fibers was found directly under her head and was protruding from the carpet in pigtail fashion.

3) Twenty Two pajama fibers were found on top of the master bed.

4) Six pajama fibers were found on the master bed pillow.

5) A pajama fiber was found by the headboard of the master bed. The word PIG was written on the headboard in Colette's blood.

6) A bloody pajama fiber was found entwined with a bloody head hair from Colette on a multi-colored bedspread. This bedspread was found bundled with a blue bedsheet near the closet in the master bedroom.

7) A finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in this bundled bedding and it was stained with Colette's blood.

8) Multiple pajama fibers were found on the blue bedsheet.

9) Three bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet.

10) Two bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to Colette's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet.

11) Fourteen pajama fibers were found under Kimmie's blankets.

12) A 20.5 inch warp yarn sourced to MacDonald's pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

13) A pajama fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow.

14) Two pajama fibers were found under Kristen's blankets.

15) Two pajama fibers were found stuck to the murder club in Colette's blood.

16) A bloody pajama fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail.

17) Four Type A blood stains that continued across a tear on MacDonald's pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pajama top before it was torn.

18) Six Type A blood stains found on the face of the pocket of MacDonald's torn pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pocket before it was torn from the garment.

19) The torn pajama top was found on Colette's chest and subsequent analysis determined that the stab wound pattern in Colette's chest matched the pattern of puncture holes in the pajama top. The only viable conclusion that could be drawn from this analysis is that the ice pick pierced the pajama top as it lay on Colette's chest.

I am not sure my questions were answered:
1. What kind of pajamas were* these that were shedding so many fibers?
2. Why if the pajamas dropped fibers so readily would it be surprising to find fibers all over the house from these fibers.

It sounds like the biggest issue is that there weren't fibers where they should have been if his stories about interactions with the intruders was correct, but when fibers from his pajamas were found in his house why is this incriminating? Which of the found fibers in your list are the ones that you believe are incriminating? Presumably not the ones found in his bed?

An interesting (to me) English grammatical point that I had not noticed before: Even when I intended pajamas to be singular my sense of it is the appropriate verb and pronoun to use with it is the plural form of the verb and pronoun. Apparently in English verb agreement and pronoun agreement follows the form of the subject and not whether the subject is singular or plural. Unless "What kind of pajamas was this..." would have been correct in which case I am just wrong. Or perhaps either is acceptable?

__________________The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

What kind of pajamas leave fibers all over the place? Were the pajamas flannel? And is the idea that MacDonald dragged his pajamas across places where the fibers were found? If MacDonald's pajamas were so prone to dropping fibers behind how is it possible to rule out the possibility that a lot of these fibers weren't there before the murders began?

As an aside, I wasn't enthused about the personal sniping in this thread when the thread started. Now I just wish it would stop. I come here hoping to see a discussion of evidence in this case and I'm annoyed when I am notified that there has been new thread activity only to find that a lot of that activity is sniping. Please strive for awhile, at least, to address the argument and not the arguer.

This thread is worthless IMO. Which is too bad, because it's an interesting topic. MacDonald has some supporters who are quite credible in general. Plus the investigators made a slew of classic mistakes in this case.

But, the facts of the case are what determine guilt or innocence.

I would say, read both McGinniss and Errol Morris and get both sides. It's not that hard to figure out who is right. The really interesting question, as always, is why intelligent people insist on being wrong.

Here's a good overview to get you started, if you didn't see the link upthread:

DAVE: The composition of MacDonald's pajama top is 65 percent polyester Dacron and 35 percent cotton. The yarns from the pajama top are a blend, while the sewing threads are composed of cotton. The sleeves of the pajama top are loose fitting and there are no buttons on the cuffs. The pajama top had been extensively laundered which weakened the sewing threads and removed a good portion of the dye from the threads.

There is no evidence that the pajama top readily dropped fibers prior to it being torn. The two tears were so significant that FBI Chemist Paul Stombaugh concluded that, "when a garment is torn as the pajama top is torn, the bulk of the broken yarns and threads will become dislodged and fall off in the immediate areas where the damage occurs."

Considering that a majority of the fibers (e.g., 79 fibers) were found in the master bedroom, the CID and FBI concluded that the garment was torn in that room. This ended any credibility that MacDonald's story may have had prior to his interview with the CID on 4/6/70.

To answer your question, ALL of the pajama fibers found in the 3 bedrooms in the MacDonald residence were incriminating. MacDonald claims his pajama top was around his wrists when he "found" his wife on the master bedroom carpet, yet fibers from that top were found UNDER her body. Blood stain analysis demonstrates that his wife bled on that pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn.

MacDonald also claims he wasn't wearing his pajama top when he "found" his two daughters in their beds, yet fibers from that garment were found under his children's bedcovers, under his 5 year old daughter's pillow, and under the fingernail of his 2 year old daughter.

MacDonald also claims that he was attacked with the club in the living room and that when he awoke on the hallway floor, the club was already outside the residence in the backyard. Two fibers from his torn pajama top, however, were stuck to the club in Colette's blood.

The only reasonable explanation for this evidentiary item is that MacDonald set the bloody club down on a portion of the master bedroom shag carpet that contained fibers from his pajama top.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Colette grabbed her husband's pajama top by the yoke and that she pulled down on the garment as her husband spun to his right. This resulted in the garment showering the master bedroom carpet with yarns and threads.

In the midst of murdering his family and transporting his 5 year old daughter/wife back to their respective bedrooms in a bedsheet, MacDonald shed more fibers in all 3 bedrooms and left bloody cuff impressions on the bedsheet.

It's important to remember that at the 1979 trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. MacDonald is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He is guilty beyond ALL doubt.

Even if they aren't I'd still be laughing at the idea that a group of hippies managed to perform such brutal murders without leaving any evidence, incapacitate a Green Beret with minimal effort, and leave a relatively tidy crime scene.

If the domestic murderer wasn't trying to stage a fake crime scene I'd say this is relevant. As it stands it isn't.

That's like saying Polanski must have done the Manson murders because hippies would never do such a thing. It's a lack of practical experience and creative imagination.

The local detective Beasley described the gang as hippy types. He mentioned in court that Greg Mitchell and Mazerolle and Helena Stoeckley were known to the local police. Several of the gang were either in the military, or ex-military. They were hard cookies perfectly capable of incapacitating a Green Beret when he was asleep on a couch.

As I have mentioned before a brawl in an apartment doesn't necessarily have to look like a bomb site afterwards.

The murderers are not going to leave any evidence if they can help it. They would wear gloves. There are mysterious unsourced fibers in the case.

The fibers and hairs in the MacDonald case have never been allowed to be examined by the defense. There could be lies and fabrications and mistakes and forensic fraud involved by the prosecution, and I think there was fraud. There should have been a competent and just judge on the case and not just Judge Fox delaying everything until Dr. MacDonald dies in prison.

I think there are people that know what happened who have never been questioned, or who are keeping their mouths shut.

I knew nothing about this case, but became interested in it when I noticed this thread. Since then, I've read Fatal Vision, A Wilderness of Error, and Final Vision, as well as a bunch of stuff on-line. I'm convinced of MacDonald's guilt. Even with the original screw-ups by the first officers on-scene, the evidence is absolutely compelling. I found the blood evidence to be most compelling; the fact that all four individuals in the house had different blood-types made tracking their movements relatively easy. But there's plenty more, and none of it points to the group MacDonald implicated.

TIKTAALIK: I agree. In terms of primary intruder suspects, it came down to two groups. The CID called the two groups THE NEW YORK FOUR and THE STOECKLEY SEVEN. Many of the individuals had airtight alibis and not one piece of trace evidence was sourced to any of these suspects. No fibers, no hairs, no fingerprints, no bloody footprints, no bloody fabric impressions, nothing. The following link provides further details on the investigations of these suspects.

Thank you JTF for your answers. The key thing I didn't understand was that that the shed fibers resulted from the tearing of the pajama top.

What exactly is the theory with regard to this pajama top? Was he supposed to be wearing in when the confrontation with his wife began and his wife tore it when he attacked her, then he killed her on the bed with the fibers on top of it deposited during the physical confrontation between the two of them? Why does it take it off to stab through it? Or perhaps the theory is that he attempted to use it to silence his wife and she grabbed at it and tore it during the attack . Then once she was bleeding and disabled he stabbed her through it where it laid after her attempt to gag her with it ended?

And from then on as he moved about with his killing spree he kept leaving fibers behind?

__________________The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

...
As I have mentioned before a brawl in an apartment doesn't necessarily have to look like a bomb site afterwards.

...

I think you are to be congratulated on your earlier post where you conceded that the nature of MacDonald's wounds and the condition of the apartment were suspicious, but I think you continue to fail to recognize how damaging this evidence is, just by itself.

A desperate fight between people where survival is at stake and where one of the participants is not disabled immediately is going to be extremely violent. Especially when one of the assailants is armed with a knife and a club. The wounds are going to be deep slashing wounds as the assailant with the knife attempts to keep his victim back and to disable him The victim is going to be grabbing for anything at hand to be used as a defensive weapon. Deep defensive wounds in the defendant's hands and arms would be expected from the victim attempting to fend off the slashing and jabbing knife. The room would be a chaotic mess with furnish upturned and blood strewn all over the place.

Before any of the other evidence is considered it stretches credulity to imagine a scenario whereby the MacDonald's wounds and the condition of the room are consistent with MacDonald's story of the attack.

__________________The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

DAVE: You're welcome. The evidence demonstrates that MacDonald and his wife were fighting in the master bedroom, she hit him over the left eye with a hairbrush, and he responded by punching her in the mouth. She then grappled with her husband, blood from her mouth was deposited on her husband's pajama top, and she then pulled down on the garment resulting in a 72 inch tear down the left front seam/left sleeve.

There were 4 locations on the garment where a blood stain was torn through and the pocket of the garment was dislodged from the jacket. There were 6 direct contact stains found on the outside of the pocket formed in Colette's blood. The 10 blood stains were proof that Colette's blood was deposited on that pajama top BEFORE it was torn which directly contradicts MacDonald's version of events.

After tearing her husband's pajama top, Colette obtained a dull knife and proceeded to inflict a superficial wound on her husband's abdomen. He responded by obtaining a 31 inch piece of wood used to prop up the footboard of the master bed. He fended off his wife's attack by thrusting the club into her chest which resulted in a deep pattern bruise. He then struck her twice in the head with the club which knocked her to the carpet.

MacDonald's 5 year old daughter entered the master bedroom and he dropped her to the floor with a vicious blow from the club. With his wife and oldest child laying inert on the master bedroom carpet, he had two options. He could call Fort Bragg dispatch and fess-up to his crime or stage the scene to make it look like intruders had committed this horrific act.

No MacDonald advocate has been able to put forth a timeline of the events of 2/17/70, but several individuals who helped to prosecute MacDonald had no problems presenting a timeline. The following is a link to my timeline.

davefoc, also, in regards to the pajama top, MacDonald admits to having placed it on top of Collette, ostensibly to prevent her from going into shock. He would have had to do this as the top was saturated with Collette's blood after he carried her from Kristin's bedroom, where the final wounds were inflicted, back to the master bedroom. The blood pattern indicates that Collette regained consciousness after his attack in the master bedroom and fled to her youngest daughter's room, possibly to try and protect the child. She then sustained serious wounds and bled heavily in that bedroom, but was found in the master room, with her blood on both the sheet crumpled in the corner and of course on Macdonald's pajama top. The placement of the top was an attempt to explain why there was so much blood on it (Note: from memory from the books, could have small details wrong). The fibers which fell from the top and ended up underneath Collette, were probably there from the earlier confrontation in which she ripped the top, causing those fibers to scatter on the floor.

The details in TIKTAALIK'S post are correct. MacDonald could never escape the evidence collected from his pajama top. Once he insisted that he wasn't wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his daughter's in their beds, he was sunk. Fibers sourced to that pajama top were found under his oldest daughter's bedcovers, under and on top of her pillow, under his youngest daughter's blanket, and under her fingernail.

The same could be said for his claim that he took the pajama top off his wrists, placed it on the shag carpet, and later placed it over his wife's chest. This scenario does not explain the fact that fibers from that pajama top were found under his wife's body, on top of the master bed, near the headboard where the word PIG was written in his wife's blood, and on top of a pillow located directly below the word PIG.

The right and left cuff of his torn pajama top also left 3 bloody fabric impressions on a bedsheet used to carry his wife from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. We know that Colette was transported in that bedsheet because the left and right cuff of her pajamas left bloody fabric impressions on that sheet.

MacDonald agreed with CID investigators that it was unlikely that drug-crazed hippie home invaders would take the time to transport bodies in bedding from the residence. MacDonald also had a huge stash of syringes and medications in a hall closet, yet this mythical drug gang didn't take anything from that closet. They fished around the residence for weapons and surgeon's gloves, yet somehow missed the motherload in the closet.

I knew nothing about this case, but became interested in it when I noticed this thread. Since then, I've read Fatal Vision, A Wilderness of Error, and Final Vision, as well as a bunch of stuff on-line. I'm convinced of MacDonald's guilt. Even with the original screw-ups by the first officers on-scene, the evidence is absolutely compelling. I found the blood evidence to be most compelling; the fact that all four individuals in the house had different blood-types made tracking their movements relatively easy. But there's plenty more, and none of it points to the group MacDonald implicated.

You seem to have a touching faith in the blood evidence and blood patterns in the MacDonald case. Blood spatter anaylsis is a highly technical subject and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seem to be the experts at it.

To my mind it's mostly about splitting hairs. At the MacDonald trial in 1979 Segal kept hammering away at the very inexperienced Army CID blood man Craig Chamberlain asking him if he had ever made any mistakes. It didn't seem to make much headway with the jury.

MacDonald lawyer Eisman at the Article 32 quite reasonably suggested that blood from the various victims could have dripped into various rooms from the bloody wooden club. I would have thought blood could have splashed onto the clothes or boots of the culprits and then to the floor, or the culprits might have even been scratched and bled in struggles with the victims.

I still think an extremely competent judge would have ordered Mazerolle and his associates to be closely questioned about the MacDonald murders. That is far more relevant.

Murtagh lied, and suppressed the information that blood had been found where Dr. MacDonald fell.

There is some background information to all this in an internet article titled CHEM291:

"This startling evidence helped the prosecution to win one first-degree and two second-degree murder convictions against Jeffrey MacDonald, and he is currently serving three consecutive life terms.

However, that was not the end of it. The evidence has been questioned backwards and forwards by those who believe that the MacDonald investigation was shoddy, and problems have emerged.

The defense had pointed out that Paul Stombaugh had little experience with blood analysis, but the jury had not heard this challenge to his credibility. Also, the defense had not been allowed to examine the bloody pajama top to make their own analysis of the bloodstains. On visual inspection, they did not buy Stombaugh's ideas, and years later they discovered that another lab technician had come to a different conclusion about the torn shirt: She thought the shirt had been stained after it was torn. (Nevertheless, all of this was vigorously debated at trial.)

It was also proven that although Stombaugh claimed that he'd folded the pajama top in a manner that matched how it was found at the crime scene, in fact the photos of the scene did not match the photos of his own experiments. He'd had to change the position of the shirt to get the holes to line up as he thought they should. It was also pointed out that the garment would not stay so neatly lined up as the pick was being used to make one stab wound after another. The experiment also failed to account for the punctures in Colette's own pajama top, which was between her wounded chest and the jacket that her husband had laid on her."

You seem to have a touching faith in the blood evidence and blood patterns in the MacDonald case. Blood spatter anaylsis is a highly technical subject and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seem to be the experts at it.

I take your point about the victims having different blood types, but this still involves blood spatter analysis.

It's just that for years now the MacDonald forums have been full of possibly made up or mistaken pajama fibers and pajama tops and hairs and fibers and footprints and tidy crime scenes and so-called blood evidence, and I'm afraid I sometimes rather lose my temper with regard to it all. It's all extremely weak evidence and it proves nothing.

There should have been a complete investigation and INVESTIGATING. Not just being fixated on Dr. MacDonald and disregarding leads and suspects.

The MacDonald case was always more than just a domestic murder and violent argument, supposedly with Dr. MacDonald being hit with a hairbrush.

The MacDonald case needed some real experienced homicide detectives like in the Toronto Homicide Squad, which exist in some of the larger American cities, but not it seems in North Carolina, or in the FBI. The way most police and patrol officers and narco cops operate is that they decide who did it and then they set out to 'find' the evidence, and secure a confession, sometimes by third degree methods. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

In the Ramsey case the experienced homicide Detective Steve Ainsworth similarly fell foul of the amateurish Boulder police who are similarly fixated on the Ramseys:

"Following are the quotes from Ainsworth's appearances last week, along with my comments. A copy of the videotape is included with this memo as evidence. I believe the days of the week are accurate as to when they appeared on the Today Show.

Monday

"The reasons why we weren't allowed to investigate any of the other things that came up I, I don't have the answer for that."

I'm not sure where this comes from. As stated above, he was not working for the BPD and his role was defined by the District Attorney. Did he not understand his role or position in the investigation?

"I have not seen any evidence that would be compelling to suggest that John and Patsy did kill their daughter at this point. And the evidence to me certainly suggests that someone committed the murder other than them."

It is astounding that he could make this statement on an active investigation. Again, this is a clear violation of stated Sheriff's Office policy and one that may someday be detrimental to a prosecution. This also has nothing to do with Lou Smit or his character.

On possible family involvement...

"You can look at it that way, but having been inside the case for the time I was and seeing the information that was there, it doesn't suggest that to me."

Tuesday

Commenting on Steve Thomas...

"The work that he had done before this was all in narcotics and that is a unique position in that your suspect is already identified, then you go about getting the evidence to prove whatever violation you suspect him of. And, in a homicide investigation or almost any other criminal investigation, it's kind of putting the cart before the horse, you need to follow the evidence and then develop the suspect, rather than the other way around."

"I think that he became not necessarily overzealous, but he had difficulty in shaking that way of investigation because if you do it for awhile, it's very difficult to make that transition."

These two statements have nothing to do with Lou Smit, but instead are simply critical of a former investigator and through association, all the investigators who have worked on this case, with the exception of course Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and himself. Regardless of Steve's approach, there were many experienced investigators working this investigation who were and have been analyzing all the evidence."

This is the most litigated murder case in history. This includes two CID investigations, three FBI investigations, a parole hearing, an Article 32 hearing, a Grand Jury hearing, a trial, and eight appearances before the appellate courts. No case has been more thoroughly investigated and if you take speedy trial issues out of the mix, MacDonald has lost every single time. The unfairness argument put forth by MacDonald and his advocates is laughable.

The MacDonald case needed some real experienced homicide detectives like in the Toronto Homicide Squad, which exist in some of the larger American cities, but not it seems in North Carolina, or in the FBI. The way most police and patrol officers and narco cops operate is that they decide who did it and then they set out to 'find' the evidence, and secure a confession, sometimes by third degree methods. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Are you seriously asserting there are no experienced homicide detectives in the FBI or is this just worded awkwardly?

Are you seriously asserting there are no experienced homicide detectives in the FBI or is this just worded awkwardly?

He's also asserting that MOST cops are crooked and/or incompetent. Since I've been one for 20 years (he likely knows this, it's no secret on the forum) this may be an attempted stab at me - it's also, in my experience, totally untrue.

Are you seriously asserting there are no experienced homicide detectives in the FBI or is this just worded awkwardly?

I don't like to have a definite opinion about the FBI because, frankly, I don't know enough about it. I was surprised to read that Hoover of the FBI used to say that the Mafia didn't exist. Some FBI agents seem to have done some excellent undercover work in the past, and they have even come down on the side of integrity.

Corruption does exist in the police. Their main fault is perjury. What one policeman says is probably true, what two policemen say may be true, but what three policemen say is never true.

I get the impression that the FBI are mostly political intelligence agents, rather like the NSA, and yet they still try to take all the glory of brilliant detection of homicides and terrorism when really they had nothing to do with it. This is so as to attract massive funds from Congress for computer systems which don't include sexual offenses.

I remember reading a book from the public library once in which an FBI man suggested that there should be more professional criminal investigators in the FBI. I remember also reading a quote by a New York homicide detective in which he said FBI murder profiling was a scam. The FBI seem to be able to shoot anybody dead with legal impunity.

Judge Carnes was quite critical of the FBI police work in the Ramsey case. I think the FBI work for the Warren Commission with regard to the death of President Kennedy was misleading.

In the UK many years ago if there was a difficult murder in a remote location, or colony, then a couple of specialist and experienced detectives from the old Scotland Yard Murder Squad would be called in to investigate. Those cases were not always solved. I don't know the names of any genius FBI homicide detectives, but if there were any they were not on the MacDonald case.

There is an interesting article on the internet about forensics in murder cases called crime labs in crisis: Shoddy Forensics used to secure convictions, which I think applies to the FBI lab and the MacDonald case:

"Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions

by Matt Clarke

To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes from television shows such as CSI, Bones, Crossing Jordan and the venerable Quincy M.E., the forensic experts who work at such labs seem to be infallible scientists who use validated scientific techniques to follow the evidence to the truth, regardless of where it leads. Sadly, that is far from accurate.

“The CSI effect has caused jurors to expect crime lab results far beyond the capacity of forensic science,” wrote Jim Fisher, a former FBI agent and retired criminalistics professor who taught forensic science at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, in his 2008 book titled Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice?

Fisher notes that problems in forensics “have kept scientific crime detection from living up to its full potential.” His conclusion is that “bad science, misadventures of forensic experts [and] human error” exemplify “the inability of our 21st century judicial system to properly differentiate between valid research and junk science.”

Crime lab workers are not necessarily scientists. In fact, sometimes only a high school diploma is required for employment as a forensic technician or arson investigator. Nor are lab examiners and their supervisors always the unbiased investigators portrayed on TV; in fact, many crime labs are run by or affiliated with police departments, which have a vested interest in clearing unsolved crimes and securing convictions.

Police often share their suspicions regarding suspects with lab workers before forensic examinations are performed. This has been shown to prejudice lab personnel in areas as diverse as fingerprint examination and chemical testing for accelerants in arson investigations. Further, some lab examiners feel they are part of the prosecution team, helping the police and prosecutors convict suspects regardless of the results of forensic testing. In such cases, forensic experts and other lab personnel may lie about test results, be misleading about the reliability of their methods, and/or cover up test outcomes when they are beneficial to the defendant.

Some forensic examiners “dry-lab” their tests, writing down results for tests they never performed. They may be motivated by understaffing and excessive workloads, a belief that tests required by lab protocols are unnecessary, an inability to perform the tests due to a lack of training, education and experience, or even the belief that the police have already arrested the right person, so evidence testing would be superfluous.

Then there are the forensic “experts” who lie about their academic credentials or accreditation, either on their résumés or in perjurious testimony. They initially may have been motivated to pad their résumé to secure employment, but might also seek to discourage defense attorneys from questioning their test results and conclusions by presenting overwhelming evidence of expertise they do not actually possess. This often works. Giving a bite of truth to the old adage that lawyers went to law school because they couldn’t do math, few judges, prosecutors or defense attorneys can keep up with complicated developments in the field of forensic science."

Not only were the numerous CID and FBI investigations incredibly thorough, but the individuals involved in the investigations were highly competent. Franz Joseph Grebner was a 20 year veteran of the CID, William Ivory and Jack Pruett were CID Hall of Fame inductees, Peter Kearns was a highly decorated CID agent, and Butch Madden was a 20 year veteran of the FBI. MacDonald advocates resort to distortions, innuendo, personal pot shots, and b.s. when discussing the work of these dedicated professionals. This nonsense does not obscure the FACT that their work led to the conviction of Jeffrey MacDonald on three counts of murder.